Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[Cecilie1200]

We allow people with closely held religious beliefs avoid serving in the Military, but let a baker claim that his/her closely held religious beliefs preempt him from baking a cake for a bunch of fags?

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

Now, be fair. Leftists don't want people to be exempt from military service for their religious beliefs, either.

So you don't think there's a difference between required military service and voluntarily opening a business in the public sphere?

What I don't think is that there's any difference in the exercise of freedom of conscience in any sphere of endeavor whatsoever.

I also think the leftists are outraged by the very idea that people HAVE religious beliefs at all, let alone that such beliefs are given space for exercise.

 

[Seawytch]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

Why? While I may disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I don't pretend those rulings aren't valid.

PA laws ARE constitutional. You're free to try again though.

Yes, it's all about you personally.

Interesting deflection. Can't address the point, obviously.

PA laws have been in effect since title II of the CRA. They've been challenged (the FEDERAL ones) and found to be Constitutional. You're free to challenge them or support having them challenged again. Good luck.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property

So in a Southern town with 95% Christians they should be prohibited from putting a nativity scene in the town square?

Unless they want to open up the town square to any and all comers, for any displays, religious or not.

I suspect that they wouldn't want the "Gay Nativity" but without discriminating on the basis of religion, how would they deny it if they allow any other nativity?

What makes you think most people WANT to deny it, so long as the display isn't obscenely inappropriate? Can't really say I see the point in it, other than to be offensive to others, but it seems like many leftists make a religion out of being offensive, so whatever.

 

[Seawytch]

We allow people with closely held religious beliefs avoid serving in the Military, but let a baker claim that his/her closely held religious beliefs preempt him from baking a cake for a bunch of fags?

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

Now, be fair. Leftists don't want people to be exempt from military service for their religious beliefs, either.

So you don't think there's a difference between required military service and voluntarily opening a business in the public sphere?

What I don't think is that there's any difference in the exercise of freedom of conscience in any sphere of endeavor whatsoever.

The law does make a distinction so far.

I also think the leftists are outraged by the very idea that people HAVE religious beliefs at all, let alone that such beliefs are given space for exercise.

Any supporting evidence? You know the US is like 75% Christian, right?

 

[kaz]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

5. People who don't believe in having any government marriage

I believe that government has a vested interest in recognizing and sanctioning some relationships. That interest is NOT the validation and personal warm fuzzies of the individuals involved. I have yet to see any concrete evidence that homosexual relationships produce any benefit to society as a whole, and therefore see no reason why society as a whole should behave as though they do. Heterosexual marriages have been shown through millennia of human experience to be beneficial to society, which is why modern-day societies have codified that into their laws.

Before anyone decides to go, "Aha! Straight marriages today suck because . . .", that is a separate topic entirely which has nothing to do with this, so don't even bother.

I also do not believe that recognizing or sanctioning a relationship brings that relationship into existence, or that declining to legally recognize or sanction all relationship permutations as exactly equal and equivalent constitutes any sort of "ban" on those relationships. I have very little patience for the deliberately sloppy conflation of terms in order to advance agendas.

I don't care about government's interest, I care about the people's.

Having a contract for marriage makes sense to me. Oh, I love you and I want to have your children, but if you leave me for your secretary you rat bastard I want half your shit!

Marriage now is not a contract, a contract is something between two parties that can only be changed with both their consent. Government has created it, governments set the rules, and government changes it at will.

In the end, the main reason government should not have a constructs such as government marriage is that government should treat all it's citizens the same. There is a better solution to everything that government supposedly solves. The death tax is evil and should be repealed for everyone. There is no reason that sleeping with someone means they should make your living will decisions, you can pick anyone. Benefits should be negotiated with your employer. Taxes should be flat. In this day of science, paternity rights and responsibilities should be determined by genes not paper.

Let people work out their own financial agreements, the civil courts can enforce them like any other contract. And get government out of the discrimination business. Then all the stupid arguments over "gay marriage" can go away, it's not a government function

 

[kaz]

I also think the leftists are outraged by the very idea that people HAVE religious beliefs at all, let alone that such beliefs are given space for exercise.

Any supporting evidence? You know the US is like 75% Christian, right?

Yes, but with leftists, your allegiance to government comes first

 

[kaz]

We allow people with closely held religious beliefs avoid serving in the Military, but let a baker claim that his/her closely held religious beliefs preempt him from baking a cake for a bunch of fags?

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

Now, be fair. Leftists don't want people to be exempt from military service for their religious beliefs, either.

So you don't think there's a difference between required military service and voluntarily opening a business in the public sphere?

How did opening a business mean your rights are no longer protected by the Constitution?

 

[kaz]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

Why? While I may disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I don't pretend those rulings aren't valid.

PA laws ARE constitutional. You're free to try again though.

Yes, it's all about you personally.

Yes, that's all she cares about

 

[danielpalos]

Business is required to justify a profit (motive) for every transaction to the bottom line.

 

[emilynghiem]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

Why? While I may disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I don't pretend those rulings aren't valid.

PA laws ARE constitutional. You're free to try again though.

Dear Seawytch
The problem is you can't enforce PA laws in a way that violates other Constitutional protections.

In the cases of beliefs about homosexuality and orientation, there is a factor of spirituality involved which is faith based. Neither side can prove their beliefs are the truth in all cases, both sides are faith based and neither has to be proven right or wrong -- they both have equal rights to their beliefs.

Since both sides are equal, to protect both from lawsuits or discrimination, it is best to keep such people separated. It is not considered discrimination to keep Republicans from voting in a Democratic primary, or women to stay out of the men's restroom. It is agreed to keep those separated.

There is no reason not to agree to keep ppl separated from each other who have such conflicting beliefs it will cause a fight. instead of blaming either side for having conflicting beliefs, just blame the conflict for keeping them separated. That way nobody is judged, faulted or punished for their religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

[danielpalos]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

Why? While I may disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I don't pretend those rulings aren't valid.

PA laws ARE constitutional. You're free to try again though.

Dear Seawytch
The problem is you can't enforce PA laws in a way that violates other Constitutional protections.

In the cases of beliefs about homosexuality and orientation, there is a factor of spirituality involved which is faith based. Neither side can prove their beliefs are the truth in all cases, both sides are faith based and neither has to be proven right or wrong -- they both have equal rights to their beliefs.

Since both sides are equal, to protect both from lawsuits or discrimination, it is best to keep such people separated. It is not considered discrimination to keep Republicans from voting in a Democratic primary, or women to stay out of the men's restroom. It is agreed to keep those separated.

There is no reason not to agree to keep ppl separated from each other who have such conflicting beliefs it will cause a fight. instead of blaming either side for having conflicting beliefs, just blame the conflict for keeping them separated. That way nobody is judged, faulted or punished for their religious or spiritual beliefs.

I believe Persons of religion should file for not-for-profit status if they prefer Religion to Capitalism in public venues.

 

[Seawytch]

It doesn't matter what you all "believe". The fact is that PA laws...FEDERAL laws I might add, have been found Constitutional. You can challenge them again. Good luck.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Ah, yes. And don't forget "Liberals: proudly enslaving people to their own agenda since . . . forever".

So ya'll are finally admitting it was liberals that supported the Civil Rights Act?

I'd say it was the liberal left Christian Quakers who pushed for abolition of slavery. Is the left going to continue to demonize Christians when a lot of the support to overcome slavery, Segregation, and now gaining acceptance for gay marriage has come from Christians.

As for poll taxes and Jim Crow laws, these were historically pushed by Southerners who used to be with the Democrats but fled as the party started garnering the black vote. so some ppl will still blame on Democrats and the Southern white connection with KKK in Democrat history. While other ppl will say the KKK sects are now followers of the Tea Party who don't want to be associated with them either. Whatever you call that Southern faction, one side will say that aligns with conservatives today and its the liberals fighting against racism; the other side will say Democrats kept fighting to keep Jim Crow and segregation going, while the conservatives pushed for civil rights.

I guess it's like trying to blame the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore on racism, when the city is run by liberals and the state by Democrats. So what does that tell you about liberals and Democrats? That maybe all groups can have racist roots, and on the other hand, even a demonized group like the Christians can be the saving grace in another situation.

Trying to blame or credit one group or another distracts from solving the actual issues. We can fight over labels, and further the divide, or choose to resolve conflicts by uniting all sides to work together to fix whatever went wrong in the past. Seawytch if you are more concerned about Civil Rights, woudn't Dr. King Jr have advocated to drop our colors and unite, instead of divide and fight?

 

[emilynghiem]

It doesn't matter what you all "believe". The fact is that PA laws...FEDERAL laws I might add, have been found Constitutional. You can challenge them again. Good luck.

Seawytch yes PA Federal laws can be Constitutional and yet be INVOKED or ABUSED in a way that is not.

For example Free Speech is Constitutional but you can't ABUSE free speech to commit slander or fraud or other violation of OTHER laws.

You understand one side-- that Constitutional laws protecting free exercise of religion don't mean you can violate other Constitutional laws on equal protection against discrimination.

I'm asking can you see the flip side-- that Constitutional laws defending against discrimination can't be abused to violate the equal rights, beliefs, free exercise and equal protection of others from discrimination by creed?

I can see BOTH sides.

Can you only see one? If you do not care to defend the equal rights and beliefs of BOTH sides, that is biased. And if the Govt rules in that biased way, that is still discriminatory. It would be abusing a Constitutional law to favor one side's beliefs over another in violation of other Constitutional laws.

 

[rightwinger]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Ah, yes. And don't forget "Liberals: proudly enslaving people to their own agenda since . . . forever".

Well said......for forcing people to serve negroes is nothing but enslavement

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Ah, yes. And don't forget "Liberals: proudly enslaving people to their own agenda since . . . forever".

Well said......for forcing people to serve negroes is nothing but enslavement

Because there were written property laws, Jim Crow, poll tax and segregation laws ENFORCED by govt, even treating negroes as stolen property to be returned to owners, then it was legally necessary to implement written laws to reverse that trend.

The LGBT are arguing that discrimination against them requires corrections in written laws; which is TRUE in cases where gay marriage is banned or homosexual sex is illegal.

But for other degrees of rejection that are based on beliefs about homosexuality, and are not in the written laws like segregation was, this depends on ppls BELIEFS if it merits govt mandates to change. If it is just ppls BELIEFS about gay marriage or homosexuality, that needs to be changed by education and free choice, not force of law. It is not the Govt job to force anyone to change their beliefs.

Technically both sides of these conflicts have equal right to their beliefs. If I were these judges I would kick back the decisions to the ppl to work out a plan, or to separate and not impose on each other. It is not the Govt place to be abused to endorse favor or establish one belief over the other when all ppls beliefs are equal under law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes and no rightwinger
A. if marriage were kept private in churches, then nobody can tell anyone else ...

This notion that Marriage as "A Religious Issue" is distinct from "A Legal/Government Issue" is NONSENSE.

As Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, wherein two individuals Join as ONE LEGAL ENTITY... such is intrinsically a Legal/Governmental affair.

That such precludes by it's inherent nature, those of the same gender from qualifying for participation in Marriage, is wholly irrelevant.

The thing to recognize here, is that Marriage demonstrates the invalid construct of the long held foolishness colloquially known as "Separation of Church and State".

In short the Leftist premise is that the Church is Fantasy and the State is Reality... and in REALITY, the Church is the closely held understanding of the Church, of REALITY... and as such is intrinsic to their consent to be governed by the State... and reason holds that there is, as a result, no means to separate the closely held principles of the individual from their consent to be governed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

1st Amendment to the Constitution, serving Americans since 1789

Federal PA laws have withstood Constitutional challenge.

Aren't you a state's rights guy?

Yeah, we all know how much respect leftists have for "withstood Constitutional challenge" when it's something they don't agree with. Don't even try it on with us.

Why? While I may disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I don't pretend those rulings aren't valid.

PA laws ARE constitutional. You're free to try again though.

Yes, it's all about you personally.

Of course it is all about her PERSONALLY. It's never about anything else, where one is dealing with a Relativist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It doesn't matter what you all "believe". The fact is that PA laws...FEDERAL laws I might add, have been found Constitutional. You can challenge them again. Good luck.

LOL! Yes, yes... PA Laws have been found to be constitutional, therefore PA Laws can be interpreted by anyone to mean anything and everything... and as a result are ironclad enforceable.

ROFL! Dam' straight!

Just as The Power To Tax is Constitutional, thus the government is justified to tax whatever it claims is necessary without regard to any other consideration.

And THAT good Reader is why tolerating the mentally disordered is catastrophic to the individual and by extension... the summed collective of such.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes and no rightwinger
A. if marriage were kept private in churches, then nobody can tell anyone else ...

This notion that Marriage as "A Religious Issue" is distinct from "A Legal/Government Issue" is NONSENSE.

As Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman, wherein two individuals Join as ONE LEGAL ENTITY... such is intrinsically a Legal/Governmental affair.

That such precludes by it's inherent nature, those of the same gender from qualifying for participation in Marriage, is wholly irrelevant.

The thing to recognize here, is that Marriage demonstrates the invalid construct of the long held foolishness colloquially known as "Separation of Church and State".

In short the Leftist premise is that the Church is Fantasy and the State is Reality... and in REALITY, the Church is the closely held understanding of the Church, of REALITY... and as such is intrinsic to their consent to be governed by the State... and reason holds that there is, as a result, no means to separate the closely held principles of the individual from their consent to be governed.

Dear Where_r_my_Keys
To translate into secular speak,
This time it is the left that is failing to
Separate church from state.

They have no right to force others to change their views or beliefs about marriage,especially when asking their beliefs to be respected.

Both sides keep pushing their beliefs onto the public. This violates separation of church and state which is normally the leftist battlecry. So now the left should know what it feels like to want the right to express and exercise their beliefs equally, but told they should keep it in private. They've rallied to remove Christianity from public institutions but when it comes to their beliefs, they want these endorsed by govt.

Ironic especially to see how with the term God, they never tried to define it to keep it as a universal concept, but push for it to be removed. But when it comes to marriage, instead of agreeing to remove it to keep it private, they want to change and expand the meaning.

Whatever suits their beliefs, even at the expense of others beliefs, and in conflict with their whole platform on church and state separation by forcing other ppl to change their beliefs by govt mandates rulings and laws.